Actually, I think the biggest problem is that the credits are there in the first line of the article.
The authorship of the protocol is not the most notable thing about that particular protocol. If authorship was then it would probably indicate that the protocol was either very new or not very interesting. I have added credit sections to several of the IETF protocols where it is relevant, except for the ones where I was a principle author of course. I would suggest that the proper place for that info is in a separate section describing the authorship, influences and the connections to prior work. Tracing the architectural influences on protocols is an interesting topic in its own right and something that is not normally something you would find in the specs themselves. The first thing I want someone to find out about DKIM is that it is a proposal for adding email signatures that differes from previous proposals in the following important ways: it is designed for ubiquitous deployment, signing keys are maintained at the domain name level and published through the DNS, the specification has been deployed by some of the largest email senders on the Internet including Yahoo, Gmail and Bank of America, the specification is supported by a coalition that includes virtually all the principle providers of email products/services and security products/services. > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Frank Ellermann > Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2006 6:17 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [ietf-dkim] OT: DK credits > > Hi, I put the Wikipedia entry for "domainkeys" on my > watchlist, and edited some details like moving a link to > Dave's DKIM page to the first position in the "external > links" section. > > Russ Nelson added Eric, John, and himself to the intro as the > main "domainkeys" developers, is that correct ? All listed > in the credits section of Mark's draft, but are these three out of > 26 listed in Mark's draft a good selection ? > > Sorry, I've a "thing" with SEO spam, and somebody adding a > link to an article about himself triggers my alarm bells, if > the 'edit comment' only mentions adding Eric and John. Of > course it's perfectly okay to do this if it's correct, but I > want to verify it: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DomainKeys> > > Bye, Frank > > > > _______________________________________________ > NOTE WELL: This list operates according to > http://dkim.org/ietf-list-rules.html > > _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://dkim.org/ietf-list-rules.html
